[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h)
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h) |
Date: |
03 May 2001 13:08:38 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
"Dale P. Smith" <address@hidden> writes:
> Well, it (supposedly) provides for version independence. When you use
> the scm_ interface, you use a lot of macros that know about the details
> of internal structures. The parallel gh_ routines are function calls.
>
> It should be possible to not have to recompile or even relink your app
> if you use the gh_ interface, even if the layout of SCM or other data
> structures change. Look at the difference between gh_car and SCM_CAR
> for example.
Ahh. Good point.
Well, if that's considered important and something that the gh_
interface is intended to guarantee, then we should definitely make
sure that goal is documented clearly (if it's not already), so we'll
know we need to add duplicate gh_ functional definitions of many of
the SCM_ operations.
We'll still have to answer questions like this, though:
If there's already a scm_ function that's totally appropriate for
public use, say scm_less_p, do we need to #define gh_less_p
scm_less_p, or do we just document that the "public" C level interface
to guile is the gh_interface plus *some* of the scm_ interface?
Further, if we do think #define gh_less_p scm_less_p is the way to go,
but we also think a design goal for the gh_interface is C orientation,
do we really need to prefer
#define gh_less_p(x) (scm_less_p((x)) != SCM_BOOL_F)
?
--
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
- Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), (continued)
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Chris Cramer, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Martin Grabmueller, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Neil Jerram, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/08